http://www.libertariannews.org/2012/01/ ... ciousness/
1. n /∞ = 0 and ∞ / n = ∞
The argument that you exist now but cease to exist in the future requires that at some point infinitely in the future you are perceived as not having existed infinitely into the past. If you have not existed into the past from some future perspective and do not exist infinitely into the future from your current perspective then you never have and never will exist for all infinity. Obviously this is a logical paradox that can only be resolved by saying consciousness is external and infinite in nature.
2. If you believe in the theory of Einsteinian Quantum Mechanics, then you believe that conscious observation must be present to collapse a wave function. If consciousness did not exist prior to matter coming into existence, then it is impossible that matter could ever come into existence. Additionally, this rules out the possibility that consciousness is the result of quantum mechanical processes. Either consciousness existed before matter or QM is wrong, one or the other is indisputably true. Regardless, it is a logical paradox to conclude that consciousness is the result of QM processes.
Decoherence as an explanation results in either a many worlds or many minds interpretation. A many minds interpretation leads to a continuous infinity of minds existing in an infinite number of universes. This leads to a system that is unable to explain single photon interference patterns in experiments such as the double slit experiment, which clearly means this is not a logical or rational description of this present physical universe.
To quote wiki on the many worlds interpretation:
“decoherence by itself may not give a complete solution of the measurement problem, since all components of the wave function still exist in a global superposition, which is explicitly acknowledged in the many-worlds interpretation. All decoherence explains, in this view, is why these coherences are no longer available for inspection by local observers. To present a solution to the measurement problem in most interpretations of quantum mechanics, decoherence must be supplied with some nontrivial interpretational considerations (as for example Wojciech Zurek tends to do in his Existential interpretation). However, according to Everett and DeWitt the many-worlds interpretation can be derived from the formalism alone, in which case no extra interpretational layer is required.”
“The many-worlds interpretation should not be confused with the similar many-minds interpretation which defines the split on the level of the observers’ minds.The many-worlds interpretation leads to a deterministic view of nature in which there is no special role for the human mind.“
oops, I guess we are back to determinism.
3. Given that we have established that consciousness is either infinite and external to the brain, QM is wrong, or all processes are deterministic, we know that any attempt to explain consciousness as being local to the brain must do so using only deterministic biochemical processes. If biochemical processes are truly the source of consciousness, then you have no free will because all chemical processes are deterministic in nature. If this is the case, then you aren’t actually choosing to read this article. Nature has pre-destined you to read this article. Your life has no meaning since you don’t actually control it. It’s either that or consciousness is infinite, eternal and external to the brain and this physical universe.
4. Strong emergence, the supposition that new properties can emerge from component systems, is a logical impossibility. This means that either subatomic particles must be conscious or consciousness must arise from outside the brain. Given that there is no evidence to suggest subatomic particles are conscious and that attempting to do so by way of QM results in a logical contradiction, it is illogical to conclude consciousness is a product of biochemical processes.
5. The number of synapses in the brain is not large enough to hold all the memories of the brain. There is no known mechanism of memory transport in the brain. There is no center point in the brain that can be observed to initiate conscious thought. Any attempt to explain memory as being local to the brain requires a retention of state. If matter changes state, information is lost. This is a fundamental proven law of the universe. Because we know QM is not logically capable of explaining consciousness and because we know LTP is the only physical mechanism of state retention and because we know there are not enough synapses to account for human memory, it is illogical conclude that all memory is local to the brain. If consciousness is a product of deterministic biochemical processes, this again violates logic on grounds of emergence as well as invalidating free will.
So here in lies a choice. You can choose to believe that consciousness is the product of biochemical processes (which is illogical) and that you have no free will, or you can choose to believe that consciousness is eternal and external to the brain which allows for free will. No matter what, you can not say that consciousness is internal to the brain and that you have free will. This is not a logical option.
Chose wisely atheists… oops! I’m sorry, you don’t have a choice. Deterministic chemical processes already made that decision for you
Further supporting evidence: Lancet 2001; 358: 2039-45
http://profezie3m.altervista.org/archiv ... et_NDE.htm
With lack of evidence for any other theories for NDE, the thus far assumed, but never proven, concept that consciousness and memories are localised in the brain should be discussed. How could a clear consciousness outside one’s body be experienced at the moment that the brain no longer functions during a period of clinical death with flat EEG?22 Also, in cardiac arrest the EEG usually becomes flat in most cases within about 10 s from onset of syncope.29,30 Furthermore, blind people have described veridical perception during out-of-body experiences at the time of this experience.31NDE pushes at the limits of medical ideas about the range of human consciousness and the mind-brain relation.
Credit to William Bray for his logical rigor in helping me form these arguments, along with and countless other philosophers and physicists.